Delhi Development Authority vs Tejpal & Ors.

Land Acquisition – Public interest – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Condonation of delay in filing appeals sought by the appellants-government entities on grounds of public interest – Public infrastructure projects such as hospitals, schools, expansion of metro, etc. built on a large number of acquired lands – Elements of public interest: Held: While balancing the interest of the public exchequer against that of individuals, there are many other interests at stake, and it might not be possible to undo the acquisitions without causing significant cascading harms and losses to public infrastructure – Effect of non-condonation of delay would go beyond mere financial loss to the exchequer, and instead extend to the public at large – There would be unscrambling the egg if compensation paid would have to be clawed back or possession taken would have to be reversed – In many cases, development projects might also have to be undone – Rights have been vested to the public at large, given the public infrastructure that has come up on a large number of these acquired lands especially, in cases where the possession was taken – When balancing public with private interest, the quantum and adequacy of compensation do not compel much – Hence, the comparative impact on the respondent-landowners would be minimal – Multiplicity of contradictory judicial opinions on s.24(2) of the 2013 Act made the present set of circumstances sui generis – The constant flux in the legal position of law created significant challenges for the appellants while approaching this Court – Impact of not condoning the delay, discussed – Larger interest of justice mandates condonation of the delay. [Paras 50-56] Land Acquisition – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Condonation of delay sought on allegations of concealment by respondents-landowners – High Court allowing the landowners’ claim declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsed – Condonation of delay in filing present appeals sought by the appellants-authorities inter alia on ground of suppression of material facts by the landowners before High Court in certain cases as regards previous unsuccessful litigations, acquisitions being already complete, landowners being only subsequent purchasers who acquired the lands after they were notified for the acquisition – Scope of inquiry: Held: Neither the landowners were called upon to refute or admit the allegations of concealment of facts attributed to some of them nor, the appellants were asked to produce original records and documents to substantiate their allegation of concealment and suppression of material facts – Entering into an arena of factual controversy at such an advanced stage of litigation, and that too without giving adequate opportunities to the parties can be a potential threat to the cause of justice – No definitive opinion expressed on allegations of concealment – However, appellants have discharged prima facie burden for the limited purpose of making out a case for condonation of delay in the cases concerned – A detailed fact-finding inquiry is necessary to ascertain the rightful title-holder and the claimant of receiving the compensation – Hence, there exist sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay – Orders of the High Court set aside in such cases – Relevant writ petitions stand restored on the file of the High Court – Directions issued. [Paras 20, 21, 70] Limitation Act, 1963 – Objective – s.5 – “sufficient cause”; “within such period” – Law as regards condonation of delay – Discussed.

Limitation Act, 1963 – “sufficient cause” – Condonation of delay – Subsequent overruling of a judgement cannot be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay – Exception: Held: Cases pending before this Court will be an exception – If the lis is still pending and has not reached finality, those cases would be decided on the basis of five-judge bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1 as a decision on the interpretation of law is applied retrospectively unless the court specifically rules as to its prospective applicability. [Paras 29, 30]

Judgments/Orders – Judgments interpreting law – Applicability: Held: Judgment interpreting law is applied retrospectively unless specifically made prospective. [Para 30]

Land Acquisition – Limitation – Delay on part of government entities – Condonation of – Government entities, if to be allowed leeway for:

Held: The delay cannot be condoned mechanically only because the appellant is a government entity – Government entities must show bona fide and demonstrate diligence in pursuing the matter – The proposition that government entities ought to be afforded greater latitude on issues of delay on account of administrative exigencies, is no longer a precedent to be followed routinely – If delay were to be condoned merely on the basis of a broad general assertion of bureaucratic indifference, without requiring demonstration of bona fide or an act of mala fide on the part of specific individuals, it would create an artificial distinction between the private parties and the government entities vis-à-vis the law of limitation which would not be in conformity with the spirit of equality before law as guaranteed under the Constitution – Allowing such latitude would further distort incentives for the government and encourage more laxity by the bureaucracy in its general functioning, thereby undermining quality governance. [Paras 35, 39] Land Acquisition – Limitation – COVID-19 pandemic – Cases filed after the expiration of the period of limitation – Appellants sought condonation of delay inter alia on account of COVID-19 pandemic – Order dtd.23.03.2020 passed in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation whereby period of limitation was extended for proceedings before all courts/tribunals in the country from 15.03.2020 till further orders, and various orders passed by this Court from time to time – Benefit thereof, if can be availed by appellants:

Held: No – Orders passed In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation were intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law – Appellants can avail the benefit of the aforesaid order only in a case where the period of limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 – Thus, if the delay occurred on account of the COVID-19 pandemic as laid down in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, such delay can be condoned. [Paras 45, 64] Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers under – Land Acquisition – Cases where appellants did not take possession of the acquired land and also did not pay compensation and thus, cannot seek protection under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1 – Nonconclusion of acquisition proceedings – Exercise of powers u/Article 142:

Held: Substantial harm would ensue towards the public at large if the acquisition proceedings are not concluded promptly – To prevent such an outcome and after considering the unique facts and circumstances of such batch of cases, powers exercised u/Article 142 in the interests of doing complete justice – Directions issued. [Para 72, 73]